Sunday – England – No 2
The expenses were obtained thus – 1114 men at 3/. – £52,000 – The number of men, laborers and all, prior to the Reduction was 1114 nearly – a few more came from Ireland after the calculation was made – but not many – I could not tell the pay and expense of Officers –Trig:1 – Instruments – Boundaries – Stationary – Southampton &c &c – but raised the pay of the men up to 3/. and said that will clear all –
| 1114 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 3342 | ||
| for | 311 – days | |
|
And speak in round numbers the expenses is about 60.000 yearly – or was so lately – One of the gentlemen here told me, that about 8 months ago he knew from the Superintendent2 that the quantity done in Yorkshire was – 600.000 acres, including the towns. |
3342 | |
| 3342 | ||
| 10026 | ||
| 137020 | ||
| 10020 | ||
| 1039362 | ||
| 51.9000 | ||
600,000 added to Lancashire = 1.100.000 = 1.700.000 – I conclude that Lancashire was then all surveyed – but did not know you did any of Yorkshire
| I will suppose that Lancashire is all done | = 1-100.000 |
| Our part of York ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– | = 0-800.000 |
| Your part of York –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– | = 1.900.000 |
| –––––––––– | |
| If the Manchester party has done any of York it has to be added | = _________ |
Because in my calculation the work done by B. & D.3 was 600.000. I said 700.000 to make sure – since that time little has been done to affect the calculation, because of the reduction in the number of men – & the time spent on the towns – Now without knowing how much you have done of York – or how much the Manchester party has done of York – I would calculate in round numbers and say –
| Lancashire–––––––– | 1.100.000 |
| York–––––––– | 1.100.000 |
| 2.200.000 | |
| Expenses––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– | £140.000 = 2/. per acre!! |
You will see by this whether I make any awful blunder such as a Million of Acres!! and 60.000 £ – !!
| Now stating it as formerly ––––––––––––––––––––––– | Acres 1.800.000 |
| Expenses = 120.000£ ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– | 2/. per acre – |
| A very good guess – and we cannot make anything but a close guess – Now I will state it my way to suit the alterations since the above– | |
| Acres 2.200.000 | |
| Expenses 140.000£ ––––––––––––––––––––––– | 2/ per acre –– |
You will see that in both the results are nearly equal, 2/ per acre. And in speaking to the public I should say – ‘The quantity done is in round numbers – 2,000.000 acres – expenses 130.000£ or = 2/. per acre – and if this statement is false, you, gentlemen, can set the public right by stating the true quantities’!!
Suppose I make some awful blunder and instead of the above
| It should stand thus ––––––––––––––––––––––– | Men = 1114 = 2/6 = £40.000 |
| 2 years | |
| 80000 | |
| 20 | |
| 1.600.000 | |
| and at the end of 2 years we have –––––––––– | Acres = ––––– 1.600.000 |
_________________
Monday
| To day I have consulted a cool & knowing one - he says we C.B.4 division has done –––––––––––––––– | 500.000 acres |
| and will not be finished in less than 6 or 9 months – Annual cost of all the O.S.E.5 – 50. or 60.000 – yearly. ‘It cant be less than 50 – nor more than 60’ – a year. – | |
| ‘C. Dunford6 has done –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– | 500.000 ac |
| and won't finish in shorter time than 12 months’ | |
| – I say Acid7 has done Lancashire ––– | 1.100.000 |
|
to be finished in 9 months – (all 6 inch work) – |
2.000.000 |
| So if you say 130.000£ – and 2.000.000 acres |
you come as near to the truth as the absence of official documents will permit – So you have here all that I can say on this point. – B.8
RI MS JT/1/TYP/11/3807-3808
RI MS JT/8/1/4a
Trig: this may refer to the men employed on the Ordnance Trigonometrical Survey.
the Superintendent: the Superintendent of the Ordnance Survey of Ireland, Colonel Thomas Frederick Colby.
the work done by B. and D.: this probably refers to the work done by the B and D divisions of the Ordnance Survey.
C.B.: Captain B, not identified.
O.S.E.: Ordnance Survey of England.
C. Dunford: not identified.
Acid: a nickname for an unidentified opponent of Tyndall’s on the Ordnance Survey, possibly Henry Tucker.
B.: the pseudonym McLachlan used to avoid detection.
Please cite as “Tyndall0242,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on